Wow, the rsmithnumbers primitive is more simpleminded that I suspected.
What he's saying is that mandatory theft insurance would provide an effective incentive for proper firearm storage in order to keep the firarm from being stolen, but that's is a head-scratcher. If anything, the incentive should work in the opposite direction, since theft insurance reduces the cost of having the insured object stolen. But think about it: You probably have theft insurance on your car, but does that make you any more or less likely to lock your car when you leave it unattended? Or do you lock your car because you don't want it stolen?
The analogy with auto insurance he presents is flawed. States require auto insurance as a precondition not of ownership but of driving on public roads. Guns, by contrast, typically are kept in the home, and liability for accidents there is covered by homeowners insurance. It would also be constitutionally suspect for the government to condition the exercise of one's rights under the Second Amendment on the purchase of insurance.
In this primitive's account of the virtuous incentives his insurance scheme would purportedly establish, he leaves out the most obvious: By burdening gun owners with an additional cost, it would encourage some to give up guns altogether. I sure that the real goal here is to deter gun ownership or, failing that, to punish law-abiding gun owners. As for criminals, I doubt any of them will ever hesitate to use a gun because it is uninsured.
.
